Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ghostbusters/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2021 [1].

---

Ghostbusters

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Ghostbusters. It's a great film. Watch it. Wait. Not the 2016 film, also known as Ghostbusters. The good one. The 84 one. Watch that one. Then review here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The original Ghostbusters is a major horror-comedy classic. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by TheJoebro64

resolved

I'll get a review in sooner or later. Probably sooner. JOEBRO64 12:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I feel like the second paragraph reads a bit jumbled together with a high density of facts. I feel like it could be streamlined a bit? Maybe cut down on the initial time/space travel plot and rework "Ghostbusters was the first comedy film to employ expensive special effects. There was concern about the budget it would require..." as a single sentence. I think you should mention Belushi died in 1982 for context Competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time meant part of the budget was used to co-found a new studio under Richard Edlund. I think this sentence could use some restructuring. "Under Richard Edlund" is unclear, and I think it's a bit too verbose and reads odd without mentioning that the studio is Boss Film Studios. Perhaps something like "Due to competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time, Richard Edlund used part of the budget to help form Boss Film Studios, which used a combination of practical effects, miniatures, and puppets to deliver the ghoulish visuals." (I incorporated the last sentence as part of this because I think it flows better and is now active rather than passive voice) I'd add the years Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters came out in parenthesis This is just personal preference, but I don't think you need to explicitly call Ghostbusters II "a sequel" in the lede. I think it should be obvious to the reader that a movie called Ghostbusters II is a sequel to Ghostbusters. From the current sentence, you could easily just strike it ("Ghostbusters was followed in 1989 by a sequel, Ghostbusters II...") I think it should be clearer that Afterlife is a direct sequel to the 1984 movie and Ghostbusters II and not the 2016 one. Up to you how you want to do this but I think it's not exactly clear at the moment. My initial batch. Should have more as I read along. May be a bit slow over the weekend as I'm going on a retreat but I'll still try to comment regularly throughout, but so far this is looking very good. I have been making minor copyedits while I go that I assume are uncontroversial but just revert if you don't agree with them. JOEBRO64 20:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Done, you can see the changes here, thanks JB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "I was writing a line for John, and [producer and talent agent] Bernie Brillstein called and said they just found him … We loved each other as brothers." I don't think the "we loved each other as brothers" part of this quote is necessary and/or adds anything. You already mention that Belushi and Akyroyd were close friends, which should convey the sentiment enough. Regarding the previous quote, I think it could be paraphrased. Something like "Aykroyd recalled that he was writing one of Belushi's lines when producer and talent agent Bernie Brillstein called and informed him of Belushi's death" "...$25–$30 million; different figures have been cited." Just for clarification: this means that sources provide different estimates, correct? "Given Hollywood's accounting practices, however, the film technically never made a profit for Universal to be owed a payment." This needs further elaboration as I am an accounting Neanderthal who doesn't understand what this means. Will keep going JOEBRO64 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Done all, I added a brief Hollywood accounting explanation, and yes different sources provide different estimates on the budget. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Hey TheJoebro64, Don't You (Forget About Me) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Haven't forgotten! Just working on another FAC right now where I have to add in some literary analysis which is extremely boring and tedious but I'm aiming to finish up by the weekend. I'll give Ghostbusters my full attention after. JOEBRO64 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Well that FAC passed. Now can give this my full undivided attention. JOEBRO64 03:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Good job on that btw, comic articles are a pain in the ass to promote. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your patience! Here comes some more: Is Aykroyd referring to scope creep (also known as kitchen sink syndrome) when he calls himself a "kitchen sink" writer? If so I think a link would be a nice. Do you think this is a good change? I did a test edit to see how it went and I think it reads better but I'm not 100% that it's grammatically correct. "He took the character's first name from a Hungarian refugee he attended school with and the surname of historian Oswald Spengler." sounds like it belongs in writing rather than casting? Same with the details of Hudson's role being cut down from the initial script. And that's the rest of the Production section. Not much but I'll get to Design later today. JOEBRO64 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Yes the way I read it is that he basically throws every idea he's got in there, which is how you end up with ghost exterminators traveling through dimensions to battle demons and ghosts, and then someone came in and cleared that all up. I've added the link. Yes I think that edit is fine, it read fine to me before but I think it may have been a bit informal a way of writing it. I've renamed the section "cast and characters". I think it's better having those notes mentioned alongside the cast/characters, particularly things like how Ramis designed the character because that read to me as something done after writing, similar to how Hudson's role was cut down the night before filming. I thought it flowed better from a chronological readability point, but hopefully by adding "characters" it makes the content more appropriate overall. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Looks good. JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) "The Marshmallow Man was fabricated and portrayed..." I think you should substitute a different word for "fabricated". I think it could be a bit confusing given the other, more common definition of "fabrication" "creating a puppet operated by tens of cables running..." The source says 10 to 20 cables were used, I'd say that instead because "tens of" sounds weird Is the No symbol image in Sets and logo necessary? The logo is already at the top of the article, and the No symbol in the section is facing the wrong way. Beginning to have fewer nitpicks as I go along, which is a good sign. This article is really well put-together, should finish pretty swiftly JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Done the first two. The "No" image is, according to the designer, the correct way the Ghostbusters symbol is meant to be and the way it was designed because it initially had "Ghostbusters" written in the middle, but the text was removed for the poster and the image flipped for AMerican audiences, becoming the common symbol. The image was just to demonstrate how it was designed versus how it ended up. I could replace it with NFC of a set or something that might be more visually informative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I'm gonna finish this review tomorrow. Just been busy these past few days. JOEBRO64 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Any reason Critical response doesn't mention the publications the critics were writing for? I can understand it for notable critics like Ebert, but without a publication why the hell should I care about what Joseph Gelmis said about Ghostbusters? Not a terrible issue but the Critical response section could use a copyedit to avoid the "A said B" problem outlined in WP:RECEPTION "In 1984, the filmmakers were also sued by the makers of Casper the Friendly Ghost for $50 million and the destruction of the film." Not sure what "destruction of the film" means—did Casper's makers want all copies of the film destroyed? The Thematic analysis section is good though I'd add labels for people (cultural critic, author, etc.) to explain why we should care about their interpretations. Just me though. And that's it. This is an excellently-written article, and certainly an important one given this film's importance! I've made tons of miniscule changes while reading I assumed would be uncontroversial so these are my only remaining points. JOEBRO64 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC) TheJoebro64, I've tried to reword the reception section a bit,I've added labels in the themes section and clarified the legal Casper case as they wanted all copies of the film destroying (can you imagine if they'd won?). Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I've done a full rewrite of the reception section :) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Bloody fantastic article. Keep up the good work DWB! JOEBRO64 01:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Excellent article, really thoroughly sourced and informative. The only nitpick I have is the "Thematic analysis" section. Now, I know others practically imposed all these strange citations on you, just for the sake of including scientific journals. But it still sounds confusing to me at times:

• "Inequality and pollution" subsection. The ghosts, which were once human, are not acknowledged as such and are treated as a nuisance that the Ghostbusters transport to less desirable areas, similar to real-world gentrification... So, the interpretation is that ghosts are a symbol for the homeless and ethnic minorities? But when were ethnic minorities deported from New York? It sounds more like Clare means illegal immigrants.

Zoila Clark noted that concept art of an unused Chinatown ghost bore similarities to a stereotypical Chinese immigrant including long, braided hair and a triangular agricultural hat. Maybe to rename this subsection to "Inequality, immigrants and pollution"?

• "Addressing audiences and death" subsection. Vincent Canby said a film's profitability was dependent on addressing children who "can identify with a 40-year-old-man with a mid-life crisis and 40-year-old-men in midlife crises who long to fight pirates with cardboard cutlasses" What does this have to do with anything? "Addressing audiences" is kind of a strange title, is there any way to rename it?

I hope these will be clarified, but I support promoting this article nontheless.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Not "deported" but moved into areas where the better off don't want to be. I'm not American so I couldn't tell you the particular areas where that happens. I think the easiest explanation would be making areas too expensive to live in, so the existing inhabitants are moved to Harlem or Queens, not out of the country entirely. I'm trying to think of a better title for the last section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Resolved comments from Pamzeis (talk)

I will try my best not to screw this up. I have not read above comments so I apologise if I repeat anything; additionally, I have not watched this film so sorry for any obvious mistakes. Check for MOS:LQ issues American supernatural comedy film directed — WP:SEAOFBLUE? start a ghost-catching business in New York City. — does "New York City" need to be wikilinked? Based on his own fascination with spirituality, Aykroyd conceived Ghostbusters as a project for himself and John Belushi, in which they would adventure through time and space battling supernatural threats. — I'm confused what this means. For him and Belushi to star in? For him and Belushi to play a game in? Following Belushi's death in 1982, and with Aykroyd's concept deemed financially impractical, he was — "he" meaning Belushi or Aykroyd? that utters a single word — per WP:PLOTTENSE, I think, this should be in past tense. Ray and Egon research Zuul while Venkman — why two first names and one surname? then rewrote each other. — rewrote each other's scripts? I'll try to leave more in a bit and to not screw them up. Pamzeis (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC) You're not screwing them up, don't worry. I don't know if I can do much about the links to supernatural and comedy film, if I unlink them someone will inevitable re-link them. I've made changes per the rest of your comments, I think Venkman is just more commonly how he is referred to while the others are Ray and Egon, no one really calls them Stantz and Spengler, but I've changed it all to first names. Thanks for your comments. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I was wondering if there was more to come, or if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Sorry! I forgot about this. More comments: Check for MOS:LQ issues. I know I said this last time but I can still see a few (e.g. "would have cost something like $200 million to make.", "reasonable.", etc.) Link "Peter Venkman", "Ray Stantz" and "Egon Spengler" at their first occurrence after the lead per MOS:DUPLINK Also link "Winston Zeddemore" and parapsychology in — unlink "parapsychology" per MOS:DUPLINK John Belushi, before Belushi's — could this possibly be rearranged to avoid repetition of "Belushi"? castmate, Bill Murray, who — I'm unsure of this but should "Bill Murray" be linked? was more serious in tone and was intended to be scary — I believe the second "was" is redundant in Studio City, Los Angeles and — add a MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Los Angeles" effects and a popular — I believe "a" should be removed for about two weeks — this is probably just my personal preference but "about" sounds unencyclopædic to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"? (If you agree with this, check for other instances too!) Ghostbusters, Aykroyd's was the heart, and Murray's was the mouth. — The "was"es sound weird to me. Should they be removed? fiction archetypes — I believe "archetype" should be linked the surname of historian — I believe "of" should be "from" Apart from the three main stars, Medjuck was largely responsible for casting the other roles. — I find "other" redundant as you've already said that Medjuck did not cast the main stars. began in New York City on — link "New York City" per MOS:DUPLINK Hopefully, these haven't been screwed up. Please ping me if I don't leave more comments by the 29th. Pamzeis (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, these edits have been done by myself, Aoba47 and Chompy Ace. I didn't link New York or Bill Murray because these already linked in the plot and cast list respectively. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Pinging Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC) As the film used practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York. — per MOS:TENSE, I believe "used" should be uses. However, since this will make the tense change in the middle of the sentence, I would suggest changing it to "Due to the film's use of practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York." One of the deleted scenes involved — this is nitpick-y but can "One of the" simply be "A" to be more concise? Bernstein's son Peter and David Spear — this may suggest David Spear is also Bernstein's son. Perhaps reword to "Peter, Bernstein's son, and David Spear" or "Peter Bernstein, Elmer's son, and David Spear"? Bernstein had previously scored several — which Bernstein? This included "Magic" → This includes "Magic" (MOS:TENSE) I think linking of puppet may be MOS:OVERLINK creature to homage their friend John Belushi — I do not understand why "their friend" is necessary as Belushi is talked about multiple times in the earlier sections, and it's obvious that he is their friend. Also, per MOS:SURNAME, omit "John". Bryan had to use a separate — nitpick-y but can we change "had to use" to used to be more concise? versions were made, a hollow — should the comma be a colon? technology was designed not to be — this is probably just my personal preference but, to me, "to not be" sounds more natural than "not to be". With the "Sets and logo" heading, could the words possibly be switched around (i.e. Logo and sets) as the logo is talked about first? the first hit for the studio — what does "hit" mean here? Right now, with it's vague meaning, it seems like puffery. The Box office section contradicts itself. The first paragraph says Ghostbusters was the second-highest grossing film behind Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom while the second says it was behind Beverly Hills That year saw the release of — 1984 or 1987? and tacky sight gags" Peter Travers — I think a comma is needed before "Peter Travers" described Ghostbusters as "irresistible nonsense" — perhaps add favourably or unfavourably before this as it's unclear whether this is positive or negative "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop fully his patented comic character. — missing a closing quotation mark commentaries by crewmembers — is there a missing space in "crewmembers"? That took a long time. I'll hopefully finish this review by the 2nd. Pamzeis (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I've addressed your concerns in the edit here. Thank you again for taking the time to review this, I know it's a big article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC) ideology, in particular Reagan — I think a comma is needed after "particular" I'm a bit confused why "Death and immaturity" are grouped together as these two things (to my knowledge) have basically nothing to do with each other. So, um, yeah, why are these two grouped together? said that before Ghostbusters television — I think a comma is needed after "Ghostbusters" It’s an honor — per WP:', use a straight apostrophe ('), not a curly apostrophe (’) interviews from crew including — I think a comma is needed after "crew". Florida, that ran from — Really unsure about this one but I think "that" should be "which" the ninth greatest film of — I believe "ninth greatest" should be hyphenated critics (118 female, 135 male) — not sure why the genders are relevant here. unranked by Filmsite — I'm not really sure what this means. Did Filmsite consider ranking the film but not include it? Or was this a non-ranked list? Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes — can this be reworded to avoid repetition of "Rotten Tomatoes"? its release it was considered a box-office bomb — I believe there should be a comma after "release" I finally finished reading the article! You're probably tired of hearing me say "screw(ed) up" but I'm gonna say it again because I really hope I haven't screwed these up. Pamzeis (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I've made the necessary changes here. The gender breakdown on that critic reception section I just thought was interesting and showed it wasn't just a male-centric film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — a throughly interesting read overall. I just realised I did not watch the film before review as told to do in the nomination statement because I am terrible at following instructions :P. I'll probably watch it sometime in the distant future... Best of luck with this article! Pamzeis (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Pamzeis!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text
• File:Ghostbusters_1984_cast.png: because some of the source files use ShareAlike licenses, this can't be released CC0 since that license is not compatible
• File:Ghostbusters_1984_Elmer_Bernstein_Score_Sample.ogg: suggest elaborating on the purpose of use
• File:1959_Cadillac_Ecto-1_(12227773836).jpg: see commons:COM:VEHICLE
• File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg: see commons:COM:COSTUME
• File:Trump-WomensMarch_2017-1060343_(32298822942).jpg: what's the copyright status of the derivative sign? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Added alt text

I've added each individual licensing under individual headers. Is that sufficient?

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanded it a little bit.

That's better, but some of the details don't appear to be present in the article text - they could either be added there or citations can be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The info is in the article as far as I can see but I've added a reference to the embedded material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So if I'm reading that right, the car itself isn't copyrighted but the symbol would be, but because it's an insignificant size it is OK?

De minimis exceptions generally apply if the copyrighted component is incidental - for example, something in the background. That's not the case here - the logo is an essential component. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...I mean if the logo was absent, it wouldn't matter because it's not the point of the image so I don't know if it would be considered essential. It's certainly incidental to what is meant to be shown. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of that section says photos just showing people in cosplay is acceptable.

The situation is a bit more complicated than that - there has been legal input that costumes are potentially problematic in terms of copyright, although Commons has chosen to accept such images. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So is it OK to use or not? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

On both this and the next point above: to be clear, this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL. That being said, I don't think these are okay given the information available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how you'd find that out so I've just removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, is this one ok now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  IMO there are two images of concern, but see comment of 26 September. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

How much concern though? Because based on the discussion above, I believe they are appropriate for their use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, it's a subjective issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, you'll have to decide if it can progress as is then or I need to remove the images. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• We are none of us copyright lawyers ... and the very need to write that is a danger signal. One of my roles as a FAC coordinator is to play safe with regards to ensuring that Wikipedia is not sued. I interpret - I am open to correction by the community on this - "Wikipedia's very best work" as including it being rock solid in terms of copyright - for both images and prose. I may well agree with you re the images PD being good enough, but my opinion is not that relevant; if one of our most experienced image reviewers, Nikkimaria, is saying "this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL" I don't see how I can let the images through. We may all agree that very probably the images will be fine, but I'm afraid that the bar is higher than that. Which is a shame, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. Given that this is a fundemental issue and on the margin I am pinging in my more experienced colleague Ian Rose in case they wish to add any input or to over rule me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually going to jump back in and say, I don't think this is the way we should be framing this discussion. Even if the article's images were unambiguously non-free, it is highly unlikely we would get sued over it, for pragmatic reasons. But see commons:Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle; our image policies and practices are stricter than what we probably could "get away with". In this particular case, certainly with regards to the cosplay we do have legal advice that costumes are copyrightable. The car is a bit more complicated because of the combination of the logo and other non-utilitarian features with a (presumably) functional vehicle, so definitely an edge case, but again I'd err on the side of being more conservative in interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Ian Rose says, but I do have to ask, why do we have these pictures if we're not allowed to use any of them? If a self-made protest banner is too much of a copyright issue, it seems like 90% of what is on Wikimedia should just be removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting I got the ping and will take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not clean up itself. Sometimes things just get missed.

With respect to copyrights, IANAL but with File:1959 Cadillac Ecto-1 (12227773836).jpg, if the logo was the only issue then I'd say it falls under commons:COM:DEMINIMIS. But the rest of the vehicle also looks like it was customized (the huge antenna, the thingies on the car roof) to be a Ghostbusters car, and we are using it to illustrate a Ghostbusters car. I'd be inclined to treat the photo as a derivative work of a copyrighted design and thus not use it. File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg ... well, according to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay the issue is complex enough that I wouldn't definitively pass judgment on it myself. I note though that the costumes look like generic spacesuits with a logo on top, so I wonder if they are derived from an actual spacesuit. And if they are, this would be an argument that they are not copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, what a time sink... Okay, it seems to me that if the current licensing of the images on WP is correct then we shouldn't be having this discussion, so I'm gathering that the concern is that the licensing is inadequate, and that might well be the case. OTOH, using pictures of the car and the costumes (fan-worn) doesn't seem excessive in itself -- there are no other images of the car or costumes in the article -- and both are described in the text, thus the pictures don't seem to be merely decorative. So is there a case to change the licensing to fair use in either or both instances and keep them on that basis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose, pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have anything else to say. I am not convinced that these images would meet WP:NFCC#8 if used as fair use; they do not significantly increase the understanding of the article's topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just making sure Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria saw this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I did - like JJE I don't have much to add to what's above. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is clearly not a consensus to promote with these images in the article. So they will need to be removed or the nomination withdrawn. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Right fine done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria just checking in that the image review is passed? (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding the sources, Nikkimaria are you satisfied that your concern from the previous FAC about an underuse of academic sources is resolved? I don't know much about the magazines but I think that Getty Images isn't a good source, I think they often get facts wrong. What makes Digital Spy, Gizmodo, /Film and io9 reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly academic sources available that are not cited - I would be interested in more information on how decisions were made about what to include versus not. I would also question the use of a master's thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• DigitalSpy is owned by Hearst and is a major website with an about page and clear team listing. Gizmodo belongs to the same family as things like The AV Club and also has a clear about page with team, it's a major site. Slash Film has been checked and used in multiple of my previous recent FAs. It is another major specialist movie website with a clear and publicized team. Io9 is a subsite of Gizmodo and falls under the same explanation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• I included the requested academic materials, a lot of them don't actually talk about Ghostbusters, it might bring it up as an example of an 80s film or in relation to other films but does not discuss it in any sort of detail that I could include in the article. I searched through the Wikipedia Library as well for additional materials, most talk about the obvious corporate messages, only the odd one talks about something outthere like ghosts as pollution or immigration. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria / Jo-Jo Eumerus ?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

OK with respect to the sources I questioned, except for Getty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about Getty. I'll try to find an alternative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the Getty one Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a rationale on the thesis wrt SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Liz W. Faber is the Chair of Arts & Sciences at Labouré College. Her research focuses on American media, science fiction, gender, and computer history." I've argued against including people's essays in the previous FAC and was told it didn't matter, they're professionals. Well, she is a professional in a knowledgeable role. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is that quote from, and when? This source is from 2009. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.lizwfaber.com/
• https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X7bZvIQAAAAJ&hl=en
• https://laboure.academia.edu/LizFaber
• https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-computeras-voice
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/liz-faber-36462a15/

And it came from Google Scholar which is what I was told to use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a search tool; it doesn't guarantee that everything you find will warrant inclusion. It appears that this individual is now a professional, but was not in 2009. Is there any evidence this thesis has had a significant scholarly influence? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It says on her Linkedin she was a graduate research and teaching assistant in 2009. Is that not a professional position? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A post-graduate position does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are supposed to understand these things when sourcing your prose well before FAC submission, not be asking reviewers to justify their MoS-based queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for not reading every single policy while reading the 2-300 sources necessary to write the article. I just did as instructed by including arbitrary essays from google scholar, I didn't realize there was a difference between one random essay and another. I've removed all mention of Liz Faber and consigned her to the waste bin of history and I've removed all pictures as requested. I think sometimes everyone could do with stepping back and remembering that we're volunteers, and writing an article of this scale, and doing it multiple times across multiple articles, is actually a lot of work and there is a difference between constructive criticism and "You should know all the policies before even nominating your article, you fool, how dare you question us". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've removed the offending article, are we able to progress? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That is fine with respect to that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild are we waiting for anything else? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi again Nikkimaria, is that a pass on the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Gog, I didn't do a full source review here, just queried that particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Darkwarriorblake, no, it need s a source review. I will list it at requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, do you know how long it normally takes for someone to answer the source review requests? Is what Jo-Jo Eumerus did at the top of this section not a source review? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it varies. (Quite a bit.)

Doesn't look like it to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus, do your comments above constitute a source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "used part ..., which used a " repetitive.
• "its sequel series" I don't think you need to repeat "series" here.
• "in 2014. A 2016" repetitive.
• "for release in 2021" well it is 2021, so perhaps "late-November 2021"? And of course in a month this will need to be updated.
• "Delphi Productions" appears in the infobox but nowhere else.
• Similar comment for "Black Rhino".
• "investigating the paranormal" isn't linked but subsequently you link "a paranormal investigation"...
• "in the paranormal.[6][7] " this is linked here, but you've already used the word a couple of times in the plot section.
• "wrote the script, intending to star in it " not star in the script, star in the movie.
• "1982.[7][6] Aykroyd" ref order.
• "Price in March 1983. Price recounted" quick repeat, could merge this.
• "The film would require a big..." is this someone's opinion (Price?) as it's just a standalone unattributed POV sentence as it stands.
• " to Los Angeles to convince" no need to link this, no-one will think, ooh, I'll click on this.
• "owed a payment.[11][9][13]" ref order.
• " his script. He considered" consider merge.
• "August.[14][8][7] When" ref order.
• "The most difficult part..." according to whom?
• "towering Marshmallow Man appeared. The Marshmallow Man was" repetitive.

That takes me to "Cast and characters", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "until the last minute" colloquial, not encyclopedic.
• "were also considered ... were considered to" repetitive.
• "appearance. It featured a" -> "appearance, featuring a "
• "he attended school with " with whom he attended school.
• "from historian Oswald Spengler" perhaps "from German historian..."?
• "approximately five auditions" this read odd to me so I looked at the source which says “[There must have been] five interviews ..." not "approximately".
• "an Air Force demolitions" no need for capitals as this isn't the formal title of the organisation, unless you add "United States" at the front of it.
• "intended for Eddie Murphy" you repeat Eddie here but then "and VelJohnson were " omit Reginald. Be consistent.
• "and began walking on all fours" there's no context for this, do you mean she did this at her audition, or just in general?
• "enough dogs in the film. They and Candy passed" who is "they", the dogs?
• "passed on the casting" what does that mean?
• "the set dresser. Her character ended up wearing the glasses throughout the film.[26][10]" -> "the set dresser which her character subsequently wore throughout the film.[10][26]" (reword, ref order).
• "The role was ... Dumont's role as"... repetitive.
• "William Atherton (in 2009) portrays Environmental Protection Agency inspector Walter Peck" complete sentence so full stop required.
• "During the first day, Reitman brought Murray to the set" During seems odd here, why not "On"?
• "to be... my" MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• "adapting multiple takes to keep cast inserts" jargon.
• "Central Park West" link this first time, not second.
• Link Fifth Avenue.
• "just after Christmas and before the New Year" -> "between Christmas and the New Year".
• "effects, they needed skilled" who is "they"? wouldn't "skilled ... were needed" be preferred?
• "existent in New York.[32] Despite its New York" repetitive.
• "they could film only" similar to the point above, "filming could only be..."

That takes me to "Post-production". More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and looming June 8, 1984, release date" reads clumsily, do we need the date here?
• "editing the film while shooting it." edited the film while is was being shot.
• "filming an ... film" repetitive.
• "effects-laden film .... effects " ditto.
• "filmed in advance; there was no option to go back and film new scenes..." four uses of "film" in a single sentence...
• "The feeling was ..." whose feeling?
• "son Peter.[42][41] " ref order.
• "filming had begun or all the cast had been signed." this reads oddly to me in the prose. Maybe a footnote to say that (if I'm reading it right) the timing was uncertain.
• "Ghostbusters".[42][41] Bernstein" ref order.
• "like ["Ghostbusters"], " previous quote you had "him [Reitman]" so you didn't replace the word, here it looks like you are replacing a word in a quote. Consistency?
• "Lewis was" as the previous mention was the name of the band, it's appropriate here to name him fully.
• "studios were ... remaining studios were" repetitive.
• "shots were done in one" done is clumsy reading, captured? made?
• "Gross oversaw both..." artist overdose in this sentence, at least three uses...
• "Johnson took at least three grams of cocaine " this is titivating, but is it really useful? And was this three grams in one sitting or three grams over two months of design work? I'm not sure it's relevant.
• " the correct scale. They bought several" merge these short sentences.
• "Zombie Cab Driver puppet.[53] The Zombie was" repetitive.
• "The Library catalog scene" why capital L?
• "blowing air ... to blow " repetitive.
• "were simply hung" no need for "simply".
• "The model was heavy and unwieldy. It took..." merge.
• "30-foot" convert.
• "advent of CGI, any " explain CGI before using the initialism.
• "create a second" one, not "a"
• "red contacts that" do you mean "contact lenses"?
• "deal of pain; she wore a harness" are these clauses linked?

That takes me to "Technology and equipment", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Bernstein thing is meant to mean that he joined the project very early on before most other components were set in stone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh and the Cocaine part, I just find it fascinating tbh and it was obviously important to whatever process he undertook that night. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging The Rambling Man, sorry to rush, I'd just like to get it done before the new film comes out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll aim to get the rest done by the end of today. Sorry for the pause, not been feeling 100%. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to manage it tonight, I'll do my best to get there tomorrow morning. I encountered traffic on my way to High Wycombe where I'm going to watch the Tractor Boys beat the Chair Boys. If that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I can relate to the traffic part in the UK, my disinterest in football knows no bounds. Have fun. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• " in the six weeks before filming began" any insight as to why this short timescale?
• "on-screen models were" of the proton packs.
• "The neutrino wand had" in quote marks for consistency.
• "The PKE meter" what's that?
• "It also had fantastic features ..." which didn't make it on-screen?
• "a No symbol with" no need capitalise No.
• "consultant Brent Boates. Boates drew" repetitive.
• "consumed enough power the rest " this doesn't parse correctly for me, maybe "consumed so much power that the rest"
• "explodes ... explosion" repetitive.
• "was done on set" very much dislike "done".
• "its wide release" country or world?
• "increased to $23.1 million during its first week, becoming the first major success" what level constitutes a "major success"? $20 million?
• I would consider inflating these 1984 dollars, hard to believe that's already 37 years ago...
• "behind Red Dawn and" you have genres for all the other movies noted, but not Red Dawn?
• "later.[9][83][82]" ref order.
• "The year 1984 saw... " I know we're avoiding starting a sentence with a numeral, but "The year..." is unnecessary, can we reword.
• "grossed over $100 million" in a single calendar year?
• "a Fireman's pole" no need for capital F.
• "far more style and finesse than would be expected" this isn't a quote, it would appear, so avoid making "factual statements" of opinion in Wikipedia's voice.
• "Newsweek's" link.
• "the Marx brothers " Brothers normally capitalised.
• Merge the two short paras in the Accolades section (the first is a single-sentence para).
• "Ray Parker, Jr.'s" no comma, check the image caption too.
• "Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr, for" no need for repetition of Ray here. And for consistency, Jr. has a period.
• "Parker, Jr. later" no comma.

That takes me to "Home media", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Done for the most part, the six week window is just because of the part established in ...development I think where they pitched it in March 1983 and it was due out in July 1984. It was just a truncated production window. The 23.1 million making it a success, I don't know, the source just said its a hit. Back then that would be a lot of money especially when it cost 30 million to make. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Priced at $79.95" how much?! inflate too, this and other such values, it is astonishing.
• "selling the ... and sell" repetitive.
• CLV, CAV, these are highly technical terms, they probably need explanation or a footnote as to what the difference is, I certainly don't know what they are and I'm curious why different formats of LaserDisc were used.
• "in the LaserDisc version" presumably you mean "versions".
• "a USB Flash Drive when" no need for capital F or D.
• "Blu-ray disc editions" link, for consistency, as you've linked VHS, DVD etc.
• "Ecto-mobile" hyphenated here for a reason?
• "Although the typical..." 54-word sentence, bit too much.
• "The EPA explicitly" who?
• "nukebusters") sanitation" needs comma.
• "used Proton Pack selling" previously I think this was just "proton pack" i.e. in quotes and not capitalised.
• "The Hollywood Reporter's" link.
• "Empire's reader" ditto.

That's all I have. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the article, and hope that my comments have been constructive and useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks The Rambling Man, yes your comments have been very helpful Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to support. Last thing, could the ISBNs be made consistently formatted? No big deal. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone knows how to do the IBSN stuff I don't mind but it's one of those things that is beyond my understanding, I don't get how they work. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, please put me out of my misery and tell me this can finally be promoted. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Very well written. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 13:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Laser brain

Taking a look into the academic literature now and will comment soon with any worthy additions. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I did not really find anything of note in scholarly literature that's specifically about this film. I'm reasonably satisfied that this article is well-researched and comprehensive. The only thing I would note is that we could expand on the brief mention of how the female-lead reboot was received because there are two salient papers that explore how the predominantly male fanbase of this film may have driven the toxic reactions to the reboot:

• Blodgett, Bridgett (March 2018). "Ghostbusters is For Boys: Understanding Geek Masculinity's Role in the Alt-right". Communication Culture & Critique. 11 (1): 133–146. doi:10.1093/ccc/tcx003.
• Proctor, William (December 2017). "'Bitches Ain't Gonna Hunt No Ghosts': Totemic Nostalgia, Toxic Fandom and the Ghostbusters Platonic". Palabra Clave. 20 (4): 1105–1141. doi:10.5294/pacla.2017.20.4.10.

Hope this helps round out the article and conclude this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that information not more relevant to the 2016 film article Laser_brain? I couldn't mention that content in more than passing in the sequel section without it losing focus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd leave that to your judgment, just in case you might have been looking for things to add to that section. I'll be happy to support once TRM's feedback is concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading the documents I think I will leave it out unless asked to change it. If I insert a mention of male toxicity there I feel it is detrimental to not go into greater detail about it. Thank you for checking the existing sources and finding these though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've given this another read-through after TRM's review and am happy to support. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Sweet merciful lord, it's over, the two year saga is at a close!!! Thank you everyone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.